Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
UNSAFE BERTH OBLIGATIONS, REPAIRS TO A BERTH, AND EXCEPTIONS TO LAYTIME
Robert Gay*
The Vine
The Vine
1 is a rarity in recent years: a voyage charterparty dispute about laytime and demurrage which came before the High Court not by way of appeal from an arbitration award but under a High Court jurisdiction clause. Vine is a Capesize bulk carrier and was chartered to load a cargo of iron ore at Itaguai (also known as Sepetiba) in Brazil. She arrived on 8 January 2008 and (as Teare J held) her notice of readiness was accepted on the same day. She did not berth until 15 February 2008. Since the fixture was before the “crunch”, the demurrage in dispute was about US$5m.
It was common ground that the reason for the delay in berthing Vine was the fact that repairs were being carried out to the berth. Teare J held that this fell within an exception to laytime for “Partial or Total interruptions on railways or port” as being a “partial interruption on port”. However, the fixture provided for loading to be at “1 or 2 safe berths, 1 safe port Itaguai, Brazil” and the judge determined that, at the time when the charterers nominated the berth under the charterparty, the berth was not safe for the vessel, and on this basis he held that the charterers were in breach of their safe berth obligation. He decided that, although the time would not count in the laytime calculation, nevertheless the owners succeeded on the basis that the repairs to the berth had been necessary because the berth was unsafe, and the owners were entitled to damages for the delay to the vessel
* Advocate and Solicitor, Rajah & Tann LLP, Singapore.
1. Emeraldian Limited Partnership v. Wellmix Shipping Ltd (The Vine) [2010] EWHC 1411 (Comm).
LLOYD’S MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL LAW QUARTERLY
24